N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter on Yahoo! News
Original Story By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer
Weare, New Hampshire residents rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The proposal was submitted by a group angered by the Supreme Court decision that enabled municipal, county and state governments to use eminent domain to seize private homes for economic development by private developers. The effort was retalitory in nature and directed against Justice Souter for his participation in the 7-2 decision in SUSETTE KELO, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, ET AL. (Kelo v. New London).
The original proposal was rejected in favor of an effort to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain. The majority of Weare residents found the method employed to be inappropriate and ultimately ineffective to protect all New Hampshire property owners from this federal decision.
The Kelo v. New London case was heard by the Supreme Court because the Connecticutt Supreme Court had rules that the City of New London was within its rights to take property by eminent domain, not for public use, but for development by a private developer. The development project had the endorsement of the City leadership and its economic development agency.
The Supreme Court ignored the direct words of the Constitution involving eminent domain:
Amendment V:.... "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis added)
The argument presented to the Court involved the exact meaning of "public use." Citing such precedents as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984) and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), where economic developments were considered valid implementation of the "public use." Justices Thomas (surprise) and O'Connor dissented, making the argument that the "Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government
the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 371–372 (1876)" {Thomas} and "The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society—in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm." {O'Connor}.
This case demonstrates the propensity of a court stacked with pro-business, pro-government conservative to deny ordinary citizens rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The ruling violates the fundamental right of individuals and families--which are "real persons" under the law--to own and retain property expressly for the purposes of securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" (Preamble).
This is a case where a straight-forward reading of the Constitution, the clarion call of ultra-conservatives and the Christian Right, did not get its due. The conservatives on the bench, with the rare exception of Justice Thomas in this case' sided with government and business in a prime example of conservative judical activism.
While the methods originally employed by a group of Weare residents was inappropriate, the use of the legislative process to tighten up the eminent domain statutes is reamarkably sound and appropriate.
The oral arguments for this case can be found at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf
The Court's decision can be found at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
Weare, New Hampshire residents rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The proposal was submitted by a group angered by the Supreme Court decision that enabled municipal, county and state governments to use eminent domain to seize private homes for economic development by private developers. The effort was retalitory in nature and directed against Justice Souter for his participation in the 7-2 decision in SUSETTE KELO, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, ET AL. (Kelo v. New London).
The original proposal was rejected in favor of an effort to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain. The majority of Weare residents found the method employed to be inappropriate and ultimately ineffective to protect all New Hampshire property owners from this federal decision.
The Kelo v. New London case was heard by the Supreme Court because the Connecticutt Supreme Court had rules that the City of New London was within its rights to take property by eminent domain, not for public use, but for development by a private developer. The development project had the endorsement of the City leadership and its economic development agency.
The Supreme Court ignored the direct words of the Constitution involving eminent domain:
Amendment V:.... "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis added)
The argument presented to the Court involved the exact meaning of "public use." Citing such precedents as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984) and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), where economic developments were considered valid implementation of the "public use." Justices Thomas (surprise) and O'Connor dissented, making the argument that the "Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government
the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367, 371–372 (1876)" {Thomas} and "The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society—in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm." {O'Connor}.
This case demonstrates the propensity of a court stacked with pro-business, pro-government conservative to deny ordinary citizens rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The ruling violates the fundamental right of individuals and families--which are "real persons" under the law--to own and retain property expressly for the purposes of securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" (Preamble).
This is a case where a straight-forward reading of the Constitution, the clarion call of ultra-conservatives and the Christian Right, did not get its due. The conservatives on the bench, with the rare exception of Justice Thomas in this case' sided with government and business in a prime example of conservative judical activism.
While the methods originally employed by a group of Weare residents was inappropriate, the use of the legislative process to tighten up the eminent domain statutes is reamarkably sound and appropriate.
The oral arguments for this case can be found at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf
The Court's decision can be found at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
posted by Jim Downey at 5:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home